Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

how the search on the wiki works

Btw, I did try other search engines, including Google. They all have the same problem. I also did research on how to improve the Wiki search functionality and asked around, but it went know where. So its not like didn't think of those things or try them. Sometimes pages for tags won't even show up in the top five and totally unrelated things will instead. Not even proposal pages in a lot of cases. I've also heard similar complaints other users. So there's just something fundamentally broken about how the pages index themselves or something that needs to be worked out. (as a side note, I just realized the search doesn't even work for finding user pages. That should really be fixed).

why don't we move all of the old proposals to the original proposer's userspace, and remove all of the categories on the pages?

That might be an option for the category problem. I think someone suggested it somewhere above though and it was a bad idea for some reason. Although I can't remember why. I don't know if it would help with the search issues either though and I still think its worth deleted blank/pretty much blank pages in cases where they can be. Along with having some good guidelines.

As for the software stuff, why don't we move it all to the main software page (e.g. delete the Kosmos subpages and move their content over to the main Kosmos page)?

I think that's a good idea for software pages. I don't think it would make the main pages to long either if the content was summarized and condensed well. There's already a lot of completely unnecessary words in some pages that can be removed as it is. Plus, I think it would ultimately make things better. Most information about something should be on its main page anyway and people shouldn't have to dig around to find things if they don't have to. Especially considering how badly the search works. There's been plenty of times where I was trying to find information on the wiki and couldn't. So I just gave up, but then stumbled on it later while reading an only vaguely related article. Plus, a lot of pages are stubs and could use the content.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

I think someone suggested it somewhere above though and it was a bad idea for some reason. Although I can't remember why.

I have looked through the discussion and concluded that you are by mistake remembering a different idea that was remarked on by Tigerfell, about me moving deleted proposals to my own userspace. Which is a different idea from what I’m suggesting now...

I don't know if it would help with the search issues either though and I still think its worth deleted blank/pretty much blank pages in cases where they can be. Along with having some good guidelines.

I actually tested it by putting “EzekielT/deleted proposals” (alluding to my user subpage) into the search engine. My user subpage “User:EzekielT/deleted proposals” did not appear, which means user pages are excluded from the general search (unless “User:” is added).

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

I have looked through the discussion and concluded that you are by mistake remembering a different idea that was remarked on by Tigerfell

My bad, I thought it was brought up. I guess not. So even better you suggested it then I guess

My user subpage “User:EzekielT/deleted proposals” did not appear

Yeah, even searching just for EzekielT doesn't come up with anything besides proposals you have commented on. Not even user talk pages you have commented on. Which is weird. It seems to be excluding anything involving user pages. If you put in just "EzekielT" it should at least forward to your user page though, like it does for tag pages.

I'll have to find some examples of tag searches that are screwed up also.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

Yeah, even searching just for EzekielT doesn't come up with anything besides proposals you have commented on. Not even user talk pages you have commented on. Which is weird. It seems to be excluding anything involving user pages. If you put in just "EzekielT" it should at least forward to your user page though, like it does for tag pages.

This might actually work out to our advantage though when it comes to my idea . Since this means that once we move all of the old proposals to the original proposers’ userspaces they will not even show up at all in the search.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

Adamant1 wrote:

Yeah, even searching just for EzekielT doesn't come up with anything besides proposals you have commented on. Not even user talk pages you have commented on. Which is weird. It seems to be excluding anything involving user pages. If you put in just "EzekielT" it should at least forward to your user page though, like it does for tag pages.

I'll have to find some examples of tag searches that are screwed up also.

It looks to me as the system is configured to search in the "article" namespaces only. This is the configuration https://github.com/openstreetmap/chef/b … p.erb#L318. It had to be changed after the addition of Wikibase because there was some issue (just look at Yurik's talk page explanations. For external search engines, I think to can let them index your user page manually by adding the following on the page

__INDEX__

I dislike the idea of moving proposals to user space for several reasons:

Proposals would be located at different spots, so you can not use the prefix search when looking for ideas of proposals. (Same applies for removing categories.)

I feel uneasy about editing pages in user space if not specifically invited by the user.

Some proposals were set up by multiple users (one created, the other changed it substantially).

The page moves will create additional discussions or need to be regulated.

I mean, the proposals that could be of use for others and contain more than some trivial content should just stay were they are. Why to you want to change something there?

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

I mean, the proposals that could be of use for others and contain more than some trivial content should just stay were they are. Why to you want to change something there?

Because Adamant1 wants pretty much all of the old proposals to be deleted, saying that they are cluttering up categories and searches. Which I agree with. So I found a nice compromise between the opposing sides here. Also a lot of the old proposals that Adamant1 wants deleted that do contain more than some trivial content are 7-11 years old. So a lot of them may contain outdated information. Also, it seems impossible to draw the line between “trivial” and “non-trivial” because Adamant1 and Nakaner, Mateusz, Polarbear, RicoZ, and the others opposing deletions have a clearly different view on what is valuable and what should be kept or not. Not to mention that I’m pretty sure they will continue to revert Adamant1 and do everything they can to make sure the pages aren’t deleted. Which brings us back further into a spiral of chaos. Besides, if we move them all to userspaces, none of the proposals will be deleted. You’ll still be able to look at them (even though it’ll admittedly be harder to search for them).

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

Tigerfell wrote:

Honestly, EzekielT as I outlined, I think moving is even worse than deleting or not caring.

Look at it this way: we have very little choice. It’s a never-ending trap. If Adamant1 deletes the pages, Mateusz and/or Nakaner will revert it. If we keep things how they are, Adamant1 will delete all of them and Mateusz and/or Nakaner will revert again. Then the argument starts again. So I think deleting the pages or keeping them how they are is out of the question, since either action will be reverted or disagreed upon. But if the particular proposal was created by mistake and/or is completely devoid of content, like employment agency, an exception could be made to delete the page (although certain deletion opposers would be against that, particularly Mateusz). Mateusz has, in fact, stated this:

I think that proposals should be never deleted - even really misguided or pointless.

So we’d have to convince them that “deleting is the only option”, which is the exact opposite of what Nakaner, Mateusz, etc. want. Especially considering that Mateusz already doesn’t even want us to delete any proposals, no matter how devoid of content they are. And if we decided not to care and keep things how they are, that wouldn’t be very fair to Adamant1 (or other users who agree that we should delete the pages) either. So we’re stuck in a complete deadlock, with no way to get out of it (other than the idea I described).

Proposals would be located at different spots, so you can not use the prefix search when looking for ideas of proposals. (Same applies for removing categories.)

I’m afraid there’ll be nothing we can do when it comes to prefix searching, but we could create a new category: “Defunct proposals moved to userspace”, or something like that, which consists of all (and only) the old proposals we moved to the userspaces.

I feel uneasy about editing pages in user space if not specifically invited by the user.

They’re all old, abandoned, or rejected proposals, so there wouldn’t be any real reason to edit them anyway. Unless you’re planning to revive it, but I’d suggest you create a new proposal if that’s the case. Normally the only edits would be to move the page to the userspace, replace all the categories with the category I thought of above, and that’s it.

The page moves will create additional discussions or need to be regulated.

It isn’t really like the repeated reversions and heated deletion discussions are much better. Adamant1’s opposers would be much more tempered down if we discussed moving pages rather than deleting them, and Adamant1 will be happy because they’ll stop with the repeated reverting and bothering, not to mention Adamant1’s problem with keeping old proposals to begin with (cluttered categories and the search problem) would be fixed. So my idea is a nice compromise between everyone.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

Adamant1 will delete all of them and Mateusz and/or Nakaner will revert again.

Just to be clear, I'm not against all proposal pages. I just think some of them should be deleted for the reasons given here by me and others. Those pages are only a small fraction of proposal pages out there though, all of which I haven't touched and have zero reason to. but its still helpful to delete the ones we can. Even if they are only a small minority of all proposal pages.

I think that proposals should be never deleted - even really misguided or pointless.

Exactly, that quote is a perfect summary of why this is an issue in the first place. It shouldn't be an all or nothing thing. Not only is it unfair to me and other users who want pages deleted, its not a good way to run a website in general or even a standard they apply to themselves. For instance see Nakaner's comment on Lyx's talk page "I just found Tag:motorcycle friendly=customary and added {{delete proposal}}. I'll buy some fresh junk food." Although not a proposal page, it still shows he's open to at least discussing it other instances besides this one. The whole "I'll buy some fresh junk food" makes it sound like he doesn't take it as seriously as he should or did in my case either.

In Polarbearing's case, he has made it clear that he doesn't care about or respect the opinions and actions of the administrators. So he probably won't abide by whatever guidelines we come up with either. If he or anyone else continues to cause problems once we decide on the guidelines, all we can do is report them to admins and the DWG until they back off.

In my own case, I'm 100% willing to follow whatever guidelines we decide on. As long it is based on discussion, consensus, and allows for some instances where pages can be deleted. I think if clear, fair guidelines are decided on that it will mostly be unnecessary to move proposals to peoples talk pages. Since it will give us wiggle room to delete things.

I appreciate the work Tigerfall has put into it and I think the points on his discussion page are all pretty sound. Although there's a few things that could probably be improved, but I don't have time to comment on them right now unfortunately. I will later though. In general, some guidelines are better then no guidelines. Even if they aren't 100% perfect or don't follow what I want to a tee. I'm just happy its being worked out.

The amount of blow back and resistance to even discussing it that I had to go thorough over the past couple of years to even get it this point was pretty ridiculous though, but it is what it is. I guess

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

In my own case, I'm 100% willing to follow whatever guidelines we decide on. As long it is based on discussion, consensus, and allows for some instances where pages can be deleted. I think if clear, fair guidelines are decided on that it will mostly be unnecessary to move proposals to peoples talk pages. Since it will give us wiggle room to delete things.

In Polarbearing's case, he has made it clear that he doesn't care about or respect the opinions and actions of the administrators. So he probably won't abide by whatever guidelines we come up with either. If he or anyone else continues to cause problems once we decide on the guidelines, all we can do is report them to admins and the DWG until they back off.

Concerning Polarbear, he has recently become a member of the DWG. Which gives him a powerful key to potential victory for his case.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

The good thing about consensus and guidelines is that you don't have to convince anyone of anything. So once its clearly established that proposals without content can be deleted, there's really nothing to debate after that in those cases. The person refuting the deletion proposal will also have to clearly state why on the talk page. Otherwise the deletion proposal will stand. See #3 on Tigerfall's page "A discussion should be initiated by the opposing person on the proposal's discussion page." Which I think is fair.

Dieterdreist is at least a little more level headed then the other people you listed. Its my hope that once the guidelines get semi-finalized and announced on the mailing list that more people will come out in support of it when they realize its not an either or thing and that the qualifications for deletion will still be pretty high. I think people like Dieterdreist and some others might be swayed to support it at that point. Although, I could be wrong. I guess we will find out.

Concerning Polarbear, he has recently become a member of the DWG. Which gives him a powerful key to potential victory for his case.

That figures. He'll still have abide by some basic standards of fair behavior though. Maybe even more so now that he is in the DWG. Even if not, Woodpeck said there was instances where even thought pages could be deleted. So its not like Polarbearing is the only voice it or that other members wouldn't support the guidelines. Personally, I think ultimately its on us as editors of the wiki to work out disagreements ourselves if we can. So for me, contacting the DWG would only be done in cases where that didn't happen and it would probably go to a mod first.

Polarbearing is still on the same level as us when he's a normal editor and not working on behalf of the DWG also and he can't claim everything he does outside of it is in his capacity as a member. So whatever power it might give him, it only applies when he is doing official DWG business.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

I wonder who this "we" are? Recently only 3 people we participating in this thread. Are those the 3 people that will decide the guidelines? Where is the larger community consensus for your actions?

In one of the posts above someone mention 4 names, with AFAIK a lot of "OSM" milage", who are against the deletion actions you take.

So sit back for a moment and think whether you are a small group of "rebels" trying to go against established practices or whether you are really representing the wish of most readers/maintainers of the wiki.

IMHO you shouldn't be thinking about ways to punish people with DWG bans and already enjoying those bans, as that is really childish. If you want to change the wiki, you will have to find a solution that works for the 7 of you.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

I wonder who this "we" are? Recently only 3 people we participating in this thread. Are those the 3 people that will decide the guidelines? Where is the larger community consensus for your actions?

Obviously the "we" is the community. "We" are all a part of that right?

Are those the 3 people that will decide the guidelines? Where is the larger community consensus for your actions?

Maybe you didn't read my whole messages, or the other ones that mentioned it, but this is just the first step in the process. Anything finalized here will also be discussed and revised in other channels before being implemented. Which has already been stated.

So sit back for a moment and think whether you are a small group of "rebels" trying to go against established practices or whether you are really representing the wish of most readers/maintainers of the wiki.

Personally, I'm good. This is something I've already put plenty of thought into and discussed with a bunch of other people. So I don't need to I don't need to "sit back for a moment" about anything. Other people support this besides just us. I'm not going to through old messages for you, but there's plenty of users in favor of proposals and other pages being deleted in some circumstances. So if anything the "3 names" (I'm not including Dieterdreist in that) are the "rebels." You should really read through a topic's discussion and other things related to it before you ramp up the rudeness to that level next time.

In general, I'm not here to push my agenda and I don't care about just being right like a lot of other users do. If there wasn't other people who thought pages should be deleted in some instances, instead of support for it by people who's voices are being silenced through bullying and other wrong tactics, I would have let this go along time ago. Tigerfall was kind enough to put effort into making a rough draft of some guidelines and doesn't have an agenda either. I don't appreciate the insinuation that we do or are just acting alone as "rebels." Even the most rudimentary websites have some basic standards for things like when pages can be deleted. So I'm not sure why even discussing the topic is such an issue for a lot of people.

IMHO you shouldn't be thinking about ways to punish people with DWG bans and already enjoying those bans, as that is really childish.

Where did I say I enjoy DWG bans or that I would be doing it as punishment? Everyone should follow rules, even me. As I said, reporting people to DWG would be a last resort and that its better to work things out within the community, on our own, when we can. Even so, last I checked anyone can contact the DWG for whatever reason they feel like. The whole purpose in the DWG is to help resolve these kinds of issues. So I'm not sure why it would be controversial or childish to contact them about it. The feelings of the person doing it doesn't really matter either.

Ultimately this is just about having some basic editing standards and guidelines. That's it. Anyone can brainstorm or create a draft for something if they want to. I really don't appreciate the "childish" comment or the whole thing about us being "rebels." Obviously there's more to this then you've read and all of us put way more thought into it then you insinuate. So neither comment is productive or helpful. Maybe next time skip making them. In the meantime though if you have any thoughts or feedback about Tigerfall's draft proposal I'd appreciate if you left them on the draft wiki page. The more people give their feedback on it the better. I don't really care if the feedback agree's with mine or not.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

There's quite a few topics involved in this thread. In particular: "What should the procedure for deletions be", "which pages should we delete/keep", and (assuming we don't delete such pages outright) "what should the content and structure of pages on old software/discontinued websites/past events/... be".

Regarding the deletion procedures, I believe that a big chunk of the recent conflict over deletions is the result of a disagreement on what situations {{delete}} and {{delete proposal}} are appropriate for, respectively. My mental model of placing {{delete}} on a page has always been that of moving a file to the trash: While it can still be rescued, you really shouldn't do that with any page that people might want to keep, because an admin might hit the "empty trash" button a minute later. I also would not have expected admins to do any detailed review of delete requests. Based on this perspective, Adamant1's behavior struck me as excessively bold: When re-adding {{delete}} to a page where it was already reverted in the past, for example, one cannot in good conscience claim to have assumed that no one would mind.

It makes a bit more sense now to me, given that Adamant1 has quoted the "please explain why on its talk page" phrase that's part of the template. I do, however, believe that this is in conflict with the instructions in the template documentation, and we need to decide which of them to modify/remove. I'm not yet sure whether we actually need many written rules beyond that, as I feel resolving this point of contention would already solve a big chunk of the issue.

Discussing how "historic" pages should be treated is also important, but as I feel this thread has become too broad already, let me just say, that, in many cases, I feel it would be preferable to update old pages, rather than freeze an outdated revision. For example, a wiki page about an app or site that no longer exists might be changed to the past tense, and one could maybe include a "History" section describing it's impact on OSM's history.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

The problem is in my opinion that Adamant1 and Ezekiel use {{delete}} against broad consensus. We might try to improve our wiki documentation regarding what and how to delete but I somewhat doubt this will in any way influence the actions of those two users.

I notice that this thread did not even attract the attention of most of the original participants of the "delete war".

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

The problem is in my opinion that Adamant1 and Ezekiel use {{delete}} against broad consensus. We might try to improve our wiki documentation regarding what and how to delete but I somewhat doubt this will in any way influence the actions of those two users.

Now you've done it, Adamant1 is coming for you...

Maybe you should be more careful with your wording, or else you'll set Adamant1 off, and when that happens we don't really get anywhere. Especially considering by saying that you're making Adamant1 have to relitigate everything we've heard already (multiple times ).

I don't really have much of an opinion on using {{delete}} or {{delete proposal}} (except certain proposals that a) have literally no informative content, like employment agency, and b) pages I created that I want deleted). Those pages I use {{delete}} on. It's Adamant1 who's a particularly adamant one about using {{delete}} (pun 100% intended ). So please don't depict me as rock solid in my ways or not willing to have a different approach; I already came up with a solution here, that would resolve the conflict on all sides. To move old proposal pages to userspaces. But everyone seems to not be interested in that idea, maybe because people have a hard time trying something new?

I try not to take sides in this "delete war", so I can be on good terms with everyone, including you and Adamant1. Although I did at one point take everyone's side, in a weird way (by reverting pretty much everyone in the "delete war", including myself) which led me to that absentminded mass reversion spree I apologized for (and explained the reasoning behind). That makes me pretty much the only editor in this "delete war" to have both "deleted history" and "restored history"...

I wonder who this "we" are? Recently only 3 people we participating in this thread. Are those the 3 people that will decide the guidelines? Where is the larger community consensus for your actions?

There's also RicoZ who's been participating in the discussion, now Tordanik too. So 5.

I notice that this thread did not even attract the attention of most of the original participants of the "delete war".

Mateusz knows this thread (and commented here once on page 2) and even though the user is a major participant in the delete war, they've decided not to further participate in the discussion, and we can't force users to be in the conversation if they themselves don't want to be part of it or aren't interested. Dieterdreist and Polarbear know about it too, and have made a few comments, but haven't responded in a while either. So the only major participant in the deletion war who hasn’t replied here is Nakaner.

In one of the posts above someone mention 4 names, with AFAIK a lot of "OSM" milage", who are against the deletion actions you take.

It's actually 5, including RicoZ. And there's also Constantino a while back, so a total of 6.

So sit back for a moment and think whether you are a small group of "rebels" trying to go against established practices or whether you are really representing the wish of most readers/maintainers of the wiki.

That's a bit harsh, Tigerfell isn't a rebel, the user is genuinely trying to gain consensus, nor am I, Adamant1 isn't really either, since the admin Lyx deleted most of the ones Adamant1 tagged delete on, and RicoZ is against deletions, so...

As far as I know, the established practices don't say pages should be kept at all costs with no regard to how devoid of content they are... that would be extreme (and not to mention unreasonable)...

If you want to change the wiki, you will have to find a solution that works for the 7 of you.

It's actually 8, and I've already found a solution, which I stated above.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

Tordanik wrote:

There's quite a few topics involved in this thread. In particular: "What should the procedure for deletions be", "which pages should we delete/keep", and (assuming we don't delete such pages outright) "what should the content and structure of pages on old software/discontinued websites/past events/... be".

Good point. I tried to limit it in the beginning but many of these topics are linked to each other and I had the impression that the others wanted to voice their opinion on all of these topics.

EzekielT wrote:

I don't really have much of an opinion on using {{delete}} or {{delete proposal}} (except certain proposals that a) have literally no informative content, like employment agency, and b) pages I created that I want deleted).

There are tons of 'technical' reasons to use delete, like duplicated files, copyright issues of files, licensing issues (I usually forward them to admins), empty pages, broken files, broken templates with no use (creator writes: "sorry it is broken and useless", I sometimes contacted the people individually), pages like "Please delete..." without the template, empty and wrong translations (e.g. English version equal to Japanese version, and no page history to keep), redirects to deleted pages, automatically created pages containing a template only (I see, you could discuss in this case), content not relating to OpenStreetMap in any way (like private images, Wikipedia-like pages about general concepts like "Publishers"), multiple identical pages (usually changed to redirects), and spam.

EzekielT wrote:

I try not to take sides in this "delete war", so I can be on good terms with everyone

Thank you.

RicoZ wrote:

I notice that this thread did not even attract the attention of most of the original participants of the "delete war".

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

I did not participate here recently because I got the impression it wasn’t necessary, and I have already stated that I would be very reluctant with any deletion (besides your own pages, if they haven’t attracted other contributors and tags are not used). There’s no real benefit but some risk involved. Space in the wiki is not limited like it is in a newspaper or book.

I agree with Tordanik‘s basic definition: delete what nobody wants to keep. If you get a sign or idea that someone might care, I would not insist on deletion, and I agree this seems excessively bold.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

My mental model of placing {{delete}} on a page has always been that of moving a file to the trash: While it can still be rescued, you really shouldn't do that with any page that people might want to keep, because an admin might hit the "empty trash" button a minute later.

Originally I was under the assumption that an admin would wait a certain amount of time before deleting pages. Since that's what Lyx always did. I've never seen an instance of a page being deleted the day of or immediately after a request was put up. I can agree that if pages are deleted that quickly discretion should be used though in what gets requested for deletion. Which is why I think good guidelines are necessary and also why I didn't indiscriminately request pages be deleted in the first place. I was actually pretty choosy about it and reviewed all of them first. Despite accusations to the contrary.

It makes a bit more sense now to me, given that Adamant1 has quoted the "please explain why on its talk page" phrase that's part of the template. I do, however, believe that this is in conflict with the instructions in the template documentation, and we need to decide which of them to modify/remove.

If talk page discussions are out of the question with the delete template, the sentence saying so should be removed from it. A lot of this happened due to the misunderstanding that both deletion requests and deletion proposals required discussion if there was any objections to them.

Although most people were unwilling to discuss things even in cases where I used a deletion proposal instead and I still got them reverted. There was also no attempt to discuss things on my talk page after the reverts either. So I think its as much to do with certain people and their attitudes that its their way or highway, then its an issue about what particular template I used or what the template says. Which again is why I think guidelines are necessary.

I'm not yet sure whether we actually need many written rules beyond that, as I feel resolving this point of contention would already solve a big chunk of the issue.

I would agree with you on that if there wasn't the head butting and bad attitudes by certain users from the start of this. Its clear some people don't respect the admins opinions and expect everything to be done their way, if its realistic or not. So I think the guidelines are as much a necessary thing to keep ego's out of this and to avoid similar conflict in the future as much anything else.

I've talked to more then a few ex users who were turned off from contributing to wiki because of this type of thing. Id like to see that not happen and it only stops by having rules. Otherwise, there will just be endless bickering, some people will abuse the revert system, and others will just leave because they don't have the will to stick up for themselves. There's plenty of instances where pages can and should be deleted anyway, like the examples Tigerfell provided. It would be ridiculous to expect an admin to have to jump in every time there's a dispute about it.

I feel it would be preferable to update old pages, rather than freeze an outdated revision. For example, a wiki page about an app or site that no longer exists might be changed to the past tense, and one could maybe include a "History" section describing it's impact on OSM's history.

I fully agree with that. It shouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

The problem is in my opinion that Adamant1 and Ezekiel use {{delete}} against broad consensus. We might try to improve our wiki documentation regarding what and how to delete but I somewhat doubt this will in any way influence the actions of those two users.

1. There was never any "broad consensus" {{delete}} shouldn't be used and there was quit a lot of consensus that it was fine. I'm sick of repeating myself about it.

2. EzekielT never used {{delete}} that I saw. If anything he did more to try and recover pages I requested be deleted then he did anything else. So its not fair to include him in that.

3. I've said multiple times that I will stick to any guidelines we come up with. As long as they are fair to both sides (notice I've said both sides multiple times also and not just my side), involve consensus and discussion first, and are also followed by other users. That doesn't mean I won't potentially make a bad call once in a while and do a deletion proposal on a page that probably shouldn't have one, but know ones perfect. Ultimately, I'm fine with some or most proposals ultimately not being deleted. I just want the decision to based on more then fake outrage or because someone who had a grudge reverted the request. That's not only reflected in the deletion proposal I've had reverted that I left alone after because the reasoning for doing it was sound, along with the fact that the pages I have requested be deleted only make up a small portion of the ones I could have done it with or are out there. I've actually been a lot more conservative about then I get credit for, but fake outrage tends to override reason. So I understand why people would think otherwise.

I notice that this thread did not even attract the attention of most of the original participants of the "delete war".

Exactly. I've been dealing with them here and other places for awhile now and they tend to act the same way everywhere. There's always an initially reaction to something, but then when it looks like they aren't going to get their way or have to justify their actions they just disappear and go harass other people. Its a common tactic of bullies. 99% of the time people they harass will just give in and not raise it to the level I have. So its a pretty effective strategy most of the time, just not in this case. They don't really have to say anything more about it anyway though. Since we already know there opinions. I'm sure they will pop up at some point again though.

Maybe you should be more careful with your wording, or else you'll set Adamant1 off, and when that happens we don't really get anywhere.

The whole reason were even having this discussion in the first place is because I was "set off" enough to make it an issue. Otherwise, I would have been all apologetic and submissive like I've seen other people act. Which isn't effective at all. So give me a little more credit. There is a method to my madness.

So please don't depict me as rock solid in my ways or not willing to have a different approach; I already came up with a solution here, that would resolve the conflict on all sides.

EzekielT is pretty middle of the road on this. As much as he seems to take my side, there's been plenty of times where he hasn't and has gone against me on things. So I wouldn't clump us together.

Tigerfell isn't a rebel, the user is genuinely trying to gain consensus, nor am I, Adamant1 isn't really either, since the admin Lyx deleted most of the ones Adamant1 tagged delete on, and RicoZ is against deletions, so

I completely agree with that. I see Tigerfell as a neutral mediator and this as a negotiation as much as anything else. To that end, his guidelines are a little more strict then me and others would like, but loser then some other people would prefer. So we negotiate, refine things, and meet somewhere in the middle. At least that's how I imagine it. He hasn't taken a side on that though.

As far as I know, the established practices don't say pages should be kept at all costs with no regard to how devoid of content they are... that would be extreme (and not to mention unreasonable)...

Exactly. People are making this out as if its way more black and white then it is. There wasn't any guidelines or established practices one way or another anywhere though. A few people just thought it was "there way or highway" and tried to force everyone else to conform to there standards. Which is a big part of why the problem exists in the first place and can only be solved by having guidelines.

There’s no real benefit but some risk involved. Space in the wiki is not limited like it is in a newspaper or book.

There's plenty of benefit to deleting pages besides just freeing up space. As it is the proposal pages are hard to find and sift through, because a lot of them are irrelevant junk. Especially in the proposal categories, where they are listed completely nonsensically. It also causes problems with the search. Where the search prefers empty proposal pages and other irrelevant articles over the actual tag pages. Keeping empty proposal pages also requires people to maintain them and keep their categories up to date. Which isn't done consistently. There's more important things people should be spending their time on. That's just a few things I can think of and only covers blank pages. There's plenty of other instances where it would be of benefit to delete pages though.

I would not insist on deletion, and I agree this seems excessively bold.

Know one is insisting on anything. We are simply saying there are some cases where it would be beneficial to delete pages and also that there should be a discussion about it. Personally, I never once said pages should be deleted and I don't really care in most of the cases if they aren't. Its only specific instances that I take issue with, that only represent a small percentage of pages out there, and I also take issue with the approach people took who were against it. It doesn't seem like anyone else here is advocating for the whole sale deletion of pages either. Know one has said as much. I'm not sure why there is even an insinuation we think otherwise or what is excessively bold about any of that. Like EzekielT said, there were no guidelines or established practices about any of this in the first place anyway.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

1. There was never any "broad consensus" {{delete}} shouldn't be used and there was quit a lot of consensus that it was fine. I'm sick of repeating myself about it.

I knew that was coming .

2. EzekielT never used {{delete}} that I saw. If anything he did more to try and recover pages I requested be deleted then he did anything else. So its not fair to include him in that.

Well, I actually have used {{delete}} quite a few times and reverted those who reverted you multiple times, to be fair. Which Nakaner complained about on my talk page (resolved through archiving them). I've also reverted you quite a few times and restored pages too (mostly in that mass reversion spree of mine, which you complained about and I apologized for). And in that spree I started reverting not just you but your opponents again and I also repeatedly reverted myself over and over again, blanking and refilling and blanking and refilling and repeat, spurring that famous self-edit war of mine. So I apparently didn't even agree with myself then, with one side of me wanting to do this, another to do that, etc. (also I was in a weird state of mind then, where I admittedly lost all reason and went way overboard with not taking sides / taking everyone’s side, which I luckily managed to snap out of, see my talk page apology for the story behind it). It basically became a speedy race to be on everyone’s good side by repeatedly reverting their opposers and vice versa. Little did I realize that by repeatedly reverting everyone on all sides I would only make all of them mad at me... that may seem obvious, but I was in a sticky situation at the time.

Confused yet ?

So it's not personal. Note: I am not performing any more reversions until this discussion is finished, and I hope no one else does either.

EzekielT is pretty middle of the road on this. As much as he seems to take my side, there's been plenty of times where he hasn't and has gone against me on things. So I wouldn't clump us together.

I try to keep middle ground .

Well, I'll admit that when I first stepped in to the deletion war (through looking at Polarbear's contribs) last summer I at first saw it as an opportunity to take Polarbear's side just so he could, err, maybe have a better image of me than he used to. And I actually went along with that crazy plan... but once I was blasted by that one adamant sea of fire (yes, I’m reining in the puns again ), which knocked some sense into me, I realized that I was wrong. I was so consumed in trying to get Polarbear's respect after what happened between us in 2017 that I didn't even bother to consider why you were deleting pages in the first place, or have an opinion of my own. Since that second message I gave you in July 2018 I have been authentic to my views instead.

(What I just said was admittedly an over six months old secret ).

Like you said about RicoZ, you’re not my enemy either. In fact, none of you are. We’re supposed to be a community, work things out, hold discussions first.

And I also noticed how you could have been treated better, by the way. Like how Nakaner, Mateusz, and Tordanik reverted you without discussing with you first. How multiple users discussed you without you knowing and mass complained on your talk page in the span of less than a week, leaving you to have to juggle 7 conversations at once. How Polarbear analogized you with a book burning iconoclast. How RicoZ talked behind your back. And then someone (me) comes and reverts all of you (sorry about that).

To be fair to them, maybe they actually have an emotional attachment to them (for unknown reasons). Which would explain why they did what they did. Some people don’t want to let go of anything. And it’s tricky to draw the line. I thank Tigerfell for the great work at drawing those lines though.

I also admittedly have some reservations about deleting pages that have actual content in them, somewhat like RicoZ (although I see the benefits Adamant1 outlined of deleting certain pages). At one point (July 2018) I wanted to keep them all, at one point (November 2018) I didn’t care if (and in fact hoped) all of them got deleted, and at another point (February 2019) I didn’t even care if they were deleted or kept during my mass reversion spree. So I’ve changed my mind multiple times during this deletion war. However after what happened a few weeks ago I think I’ve finally formed a concrete opinion.

The whole reason were even having this discussion in the first place is because I was "set off" enough to make it an issue. Otherwise, I would have been all apologetic and submissive like I've seen other people act. Which isn't effective at all. So give me a little more credit. There is a method to my madness.

You, adamant one, are very adamant about this, adamant Adamant1 .

Hmm, so my apology about my mass reversion spree of literally everyone on all sides (pro-delete and anti-delete) in the deletion war, including myself, wasn't effective ? I thought it was (and much needed) .

Not sure if they are actually interested, but I will contact Nakaner.

Thanks Tigerfell . Nakaner hasn't replied yet though.

That figures. He'll still have abide by some basic standards of fair behavior though. Maybe even more so now that he is in the DWG. Even if not, Woodpeck said there was instances where even thought pages could be deleted. So its not like Polarbearing is the only voice it or that other members wouldn't support the guidelines.

Polarbearing is still on the same level as us when he's a normal editor and not working on behalf of the DWG also and he can't claim everything he does outside of it is in his capacity as a member. So whatever power it might give him, it only applies when he is doing official DWG business.

There is a possibility that Polarbear could persuade the other DWG members to go on his side though. And he could also extend official DWG business over to the deletion war (I haven't seen a rule that prevents something like that). Especially if a) the other DWG members are doing other things and no one's in his way, or b) he did enough to persuade them that they follow along.

I think ultimately its on us as editors of the wiki to work out disagreements ourselves if we can. So for me, contacting the DWG would only be done in cases where that didn't happen and it would probably go to a mod first.

I completely agree with that . But in this case, an actual member of the DWG is involved in the conflict.

By the way, Adamant1, what do you think of my idea about moving (most) old proposals to the original proposers' userspaces? It solves the category and the search problem. Maybe it’s a chance to cool down the angry mob.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

Now I'm actually sick of repeating myself about how I'm sick of repeating myself

So it's not personal. Note: I am not performing any more reversions until this discussion is finished, and I hope no one else does either.

You actually have a much better memory then I do about all this stuff. I had forgot about a lot of it, including Constantine being involved at one point. That was quit awhile back if I remember correctly.

I won't preform anymore deletion requests until its resolved either. Although I don't want it to be used as a stalling tactic by people who aren't commenting to get their way. If need be, at some point we should just go ahead with the next step in the process without them (that includes Nakaner not responding).

here is a possibility that Polarbear could persuade the other DWG members to go on his side though. And he could also extend official DWG business over to the deletion war

Maybe. I guess we will see. I don't think he will though. I think he's slightly more reasonable then he initially lets on and he also cares about his imagine. Everything we do here comes at the cost of some social capital with other users. I imagine I have way more of it I'm willing to burn in this then he does.

in this case, an actual member of the DWG is involved in the conflict.

Although I could be wrong, I still don't think that means a single DWG member has more clout for how things should be ran compared to say a larger group of Wiki members, wiki and forum admins, or even other DWG members. There's still a process that has to be followed also. The only instances where I've seen that not be the case is with a semi unspoken social contract type thing where people that have been here longer or have special "geography" degrees get preferred treatment, like not being called out for bad behavior when they should be. That doesn't cover things like edit warring though in my opinion.

what do you think of my idea about moving (most) old proposals to the original proposers' userspaces?

I'm still undecided on it. I guess its an option and I can see some situations where it might be useful, but I agree with Tigerfell's critique of it. Ultimately id like some more robust guidelines put in place. It could be used to complement them though. One instance where I think it might be helpful is with abandoned proposal drafts that have very little or no content, and its not clear why the proposals was abandoned. In those instances a lot of times reasons for the abandonment aren't given and in some cases it might not be clear if deletion is necessarily the best option.

So, I think a good alternative would be to send the person who created the proposal a message saying that its being considered for deletion and if the user doesn't mind we would like to move it to their user space instead. Along with also asking them why the proposal was abandoned so it can be factored in. In cases of older proposals though there's a good chance the user isn't even around anymore. So if there's no response the page should be deleted, because generally I think its a bad idea to screw with peoples user pages without their permission. I got chided for it myself a few times even when they were superficial changes to their talk pages. So transferring pages to a person's user space probably isn't that good either. I only step on people's toes when its necessary .

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

So, I think a good alternative would be to send the person who created the proposal a message saying that its being considered for deletion and if the user doesn't mind we would like to move it to their user space instead. ...

Should I add it to the draft?

Additionally, RicoZ and I discussed about contesting deletion request at the draft's talk page. The trade-off was that the contesting user undoes the change and the requestant adds the {{delete proposal}} label afterwards. Any opinions?

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

Should I add it to the draft?

It might be good to add it. I'm not sure where in the process it should be though. If the original person who wants the article deleted contacts the original creator of it and then moves it before there's a discussion it might piss people off. But then if its at the end where the two possible options are moving or deleted then people might always favor moving over deleting. Even if its not the best option. So where it should be in the draft is up to you I guess.

Additionally, RicoZ and I discussed about contesting deletion request at the draft's talk page. The trade-off was that the contesting user undoes the change and the requestant adds the {{delete proposal}} label afterwards. Any opinions?

As opposed to what? I'm not really sure what you mean. If your talking about if to discuss the deletion request on the drafts talk page or somewhere else, the draft is best (compared to say a mailing list).

If your asking who should put the {{deletion proposal}} up, the original person or the contesting them, id say the person contesting them, because they should have to say why they are contesting it on the discussion page. Whereas the person requesting the deletion already should be justifying it in the deletion request (so if they started the proposal discussion it would just be redundant). Also, it seems like a more natural path for the person doing the contesting.

Its the difference between 3 steps versus 6. Neither the person making the deletion request or the person disputing should have to jump through a bunch of hoops to it, but its clearly easier on the disputing persons side. So I think it should be on them.

Plus it stops people from 1. reverting and calling it a day 2. reverting and deciding to harass the deletion proposer on their talk page before they can start a discussion on the page of the actual article 3. The person doing the reverting talking the conversation to somewhere else inappropriate like the mailing list. All of which currently happens.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

As opposed to what? I'm not really sure what you mean. If your talking about if to discuss the deletion request on the drafts talk page or somewhere else, the draft is best (compared to say a mailing list).

I suggested this path, because it is shorter and you do not need to revert anything if the page was not emptied when requesting deletion (simply place "proposal" after "{{delete ". I think there were too many reverts causing aggression and anger, so I wanted to remove this step.

Re: Documenting the history of OpenStreetMap

If the editor who originally created the proposal has retired from everything OSM, most likely they wouldn’t care if we moved their proposals to their userspaces. They were the creators of them anyway.

If the editor is still active on OSM and the OSM Wiki and still hasn’t replied then we should probably go along with the deletion process, especially if the proposal was created by accident or has no informative content.

Maybe in that case we should create a voting system where users vote to “keep” or “delete” on the talk pages, through or not through RFC. With the more contentious ones anyway. The ones that have no informative content should probably be replaced with {{delete}} without discussion & the admins can decide themselves whether to delete them or not.